MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281651956 · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2022.05.019

Clinical outcomes following COVID-19 infection in ethnic minority groups in the UK: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4281651956 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sania Siddiq, Saima Ahmed, Imran Akram

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisEthnic groupCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEGerontologyVirologyPolitical scienceInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection between ethnic minorities and the White ethnic group in the UK. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This study included adult residents in the UK with confirmed COVID-19 infection. The outcomes evaluated in this study were mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Outcome data were compared between individuals from ethnic minority groups and individuals from a White ethnic background. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, medRxiv and PROSPERO were searched for articles published between May 2020 and April 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale checklist. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021248117. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (767,177 participants) were included in the current review. In the adjusted analysis, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for mortality following COVID-19 infection was higher for Black (OR 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-2.76, number of studies [k] = 6), Asian (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.85-1.57, k = 6) and Mixed and Other (MO) ethnic groups (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20, k = 5) compared with the White ethnic group. The adjusted and unadjusted ORs of ICU admission for many of the ethnic minority groups were more than double the OR values for the White ethnic group (Black ethnic group = OR 2.32, 95% CI: 1.73-3.11, k = 5; Asian ethnic group = OR 2.34, 95% CI: 1.89-2.90, k = 5; and MO ethnic group = OR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.64-3.11, k = 4). In the adjusted analysis for IMV, the ORs were similarly significantly raised in ethnic minority groups compared with the White ethnic group (Black ethic group = OR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.80-2.29, k = 3; Asian ethnic group = OR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.20-2.80, k = 3; and MO ethnic group = OR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.35-3.22, k = 3). CONCLUSION: This review found that in the UK, Black, Asian and MO ethnic groups experienced increased COVID-19-related disease severity and mortality compared with the White ethnic group majority.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.331
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.331
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.653
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.017 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic HealthSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207